Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct

This code was in effect when I served in the early 70’s and I am sure long before that. There are serveral other codes that could have applied in this case.

7
posted on 04/05/2012 11:44:57 PM PDT
by SECURE AMERICA
(Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)

Yes. It is called the UCMJ. I was well aware of that when i was in the Corps and so was this guy. I despised Clinton but i kept my mouth shut when around people i didn’t trust. This guy was dumb enough to put it out there publicly.

Clinton was a citizen - BIG DIFFERENCE. It doesn't apply in this case.

This guy knows the enemy - and some refuse to see what is obvious. His hands are clean - no matter what happens. Can't say the same for others who close their eyes to our nation being taken over by deception while 'obeying orders'. How can one NOT think or learn from history - Hilter.

This guy was dumb enough to put it out there publicly.

For HIS OWN SELF, yes - but this is about OUR COUNTRY. So he was thinking of our country and not himself. There is a word for that - PATRIOTIC.

I agree the UCMJ is in place FOR A REASON....HOWEVER, when political correctness circumnavigates those restrictions for political gain..it opens the door .. Soldiers fought for freedom and gave those who were suppressed a voice...but those who gave their lives lost that voice the day they put the uniform on?

14
posted on 04/06/2012 12:43:51 AM PDT
by OL Hickory
(Jesus and the American soldier-1 died for your soul/1 died for your freedom)

What if the Sergeant genuinely believes the President is ineligible...?

Then, should he still pay him the same honor due a legitimate President, especially since, he — as an American fighting man — has taken an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION — and not those who UNDERMINE it?

Besides, if it turns out — and there is certainly at least that possibility, is there not — to have been ineligible, then will any of his orders during his usurped term(s) in office have been lawful?

These are not easy questions for anyone serving in the military at this time.

I give this NCO high marks for courage.....

Where is Senator Cornyn? Senator Hatch? John Boehner? These guys are not doing their jobs, in my opinion, by being Congressional “wallflowers” when it comes to standing up to the President.

Yes: He will be kicked out, but — I predict — with no prison sentence, because everyone knows that Obama — based on the documentation that he has presented to the public thus far — is quite possibly ineligible.

Lawful. How do you know what if it's lawful if you don't ask. Only a robotic mindset would.

whether you like them or not

This isn't about me but USA!

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely

uphold the Constitution.

One has to 'assume' they are because they are 'told' to just obey. How is that for a great takeover.

Lawful. How do you know what if it’s lawful if you don’t ask. Only a robotic mindset would. ...You obey first and question the order next to the person above that NCO or officer who ordered it. You give up your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of (property) happiness when the uniform goes on. You cannot refuse to get on a chopper when you know the chances of coming back are slim, you cannot do what you damn well please because a firefight requires you go where you are told and you cannot claim it would make you happy to be put on a plane to Honolulu instead of being chest deep in mud in some rice paddy.

22
posted on 04/06/2012 2:48:26 AM PDT
by Safetgiver
(I'd rather die under a free American sky than live under a Socialist regime.)

I am sure you know this, but a Sargent is a non-commissioned officer but disparaging statements are frowned upon.

should he be dismissed.....

Yes

should he run for office

Yes

The military does not practice democracy (nor should they) they uphold the Constitution (or should be).

Unfortunately the Officer Corps is more political (or if you please CHICKEN SH!T) than they need to be, and relatively stand in the shadows as treasonous politicians are allowed to flourish (See NDAA, and HB 347 if you want to see first hand) not to mention KenyaCare (which BTW the unelected 9 are deciding)

24
posted on 04/06/2012 2:57:41 AM PDT
by SERE_DOC
( The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. TJ.)

That has always been the case. I know that for 24 years I didn’t have the same rights as a civilian. I just hope they give him an honorable discharge. If not, he will not get the GI Bill, medical benefits or an VA help at all. Not to mention, a job with any state, county or federal government job and most likely zero job at any major company in the country. This is so overblown it is crazy. Send him to Office Hours and put him on restriction for 60 days and go on with his career. Believe it or not, he did wrong but this is very overblown.

29
posted on 04/06/2012 3:18:10 AM PDT
by napscoordinator
(A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)

We have never been in this situation before in our country. It’s time the military would BE ALLOWED to obey the oath they took. It seems we are past that part as PATRIOTS are squashed down. It can’t survive without them - so the future is obvious.

The government submitted screen grabs of Stein's postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of Obama on the "Jackass" movie poster. Stein also superimposed Obama's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," the prosecutor said.

Torresala also said anti-Obama comments by Stein that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but in the private sector if you did this with the CEO and posted it on a company Facebook page, it wouldn't take nearly as much time and care as the Marines took before security would show up at your office to escort you to the front door.

34
posted on 04/06/2012 3:50:45 AM PDT
by Sooth2222
("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)

The oath is to protect and uphold the Constitution. This is accomplished by obeying all lawful orders whether you like them or not.

As a retired Army NCO, I agree. But I also worry that we are in a situation unlike any we have faced before. We have an individual who would not hesitate to sign an Executive Order overriding Posse Comitatus, and order our own military to force his policies on the American People. That order would then be technically "lawful".

I want our military to have leadership that would at least think about these orders before implementing them, just as I want sworn police officers who will think before following orders to confiscate firearms.

Perhaps they are already one step ahead of the Posse Comitatus Act, now that we have police that are trained and equipped like the military in every city, county, state, and federal agency.

I remember when the squadron I was in had some folks who refused to deploy because GWB was selected, not elected. They were given a choice: deploy to Saudi, or deploy to jail. They chose Saudi.

Military cohesion overrides free speech, The military protects democracy, but it does not practice it.

The problem as I see it stems from the fact that he created a political FB page Armed Forces Tea Party and also posted similar comments on a non political FB meteorology page that was created for and used by his fellow military meteorologists for the purpose of discussing meteorology.

While I may not disagree with the gist of what he said, Sgt. Stein did not IMO use good judgment in expressing his opinions and did not do so as a private citizen given the forums he chose on which to express those opinions.

Look at it another way. If a Marine had done something similar when GWB was president, publicly posting anti-GWB posts questioning the legitimacy of his presidency saying Bush stole the election from Gore and questing whether he is bound to follow orders as a result, most of us would feel it correct for him to get the boot. Or similarly, if I work for Company XYZ and create a FB page under my own name identifying myself as a Company XYZ employee, Company XYZ Sucks and post comments like my boss is an incompetent jerk and our products are crap (even if my boss is an incompetent jerk and our products are crap), I shouldnt be all that surprised to get canned for saying so.

Sgt. Stein is not prohibited as a private citizen even while serving, from expressing a private opinion, voting as he chooses, contribute as a private citizen to whatever causes or political parties he wants to, but doing so while in uniform, starting or promoting a political club or movement while identifying ones self as an active member of the military is a different matter.

Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

When and if Sgt. Stein is actually faced with obeying what he truly feels is an unlawful order, he should take his concerns up the chain of command first and if he feels so strongly about an order, he can always resign under his conscience.

John L. Perry has courted controversy by suggesting that the U.S. Military, upholding their oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, could stage a bloodless coup to oust President Obama. In an article originally posted on the Newsmax website, Perry wrote, There is a remote, although gaining, possibility Americas military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the Obama problem. Dont dismiss it as unrealistic.

I would be interested in seeing just what misconduct was charged. Art. 86 doesn’t apply to enlisted, and those prohibitions that apply to everyone, (actively participating in a campaign etc., don’t seem to have been violated)

On the surface, it seems that criticism of Obama has been criminalized.

As much as I abhor Obama and all he stands for, the idea of the military staging a coup, bloodless or otherwise is the antithesis of 200 + years of American history and what it means to be a Constitutional Republic and what separates us from being a Banana Republic where one political party or another gains control of the military and enforces a coup, in some countries this happens every few years. Is this what you are really advocating for?

Are the MSM, the ACLU and the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild supporting the Marine’s right to free speech?
Naw, no evidence of it found. Soon the Obamites will require anyone who criticizes the aO-Bama to wear a “White Star of America.”

Stein said his statement about Obama was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Sounds like he is stating that he would follow his oath, and defend the Constitution and only follow legal orders. In that respect he is following the UCMJ.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.